Case law

Dorothy Alexander v. Brookhaven School District, e

428 F. App'x 303 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 8, 2011

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established … case and that this violated the First Amendment in a way that was clearly established at the time.

DEINES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE & REGULATORY SERVICES

164 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 19, 1999

Most recently we explained: We have held that a plaintiff can take his case to a jury with evidence that he was clearly better qualified than [other] employees who were selected for the position at issue.... … McCall was better qualified than he.

Joyce Ann BURDINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee

608 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 17, 1979

In order to establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show that (1) she belongs to a group protected by Title VII, (2) she applied for and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, (3) despite … While Fuller admitted that the Project Director need have no degree, we believe that the trial court’s implicit evidentiary finding that Watts was better qualified is not clearly erroneous.

James McCreary v. Jeffery Richardson

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 9, 2013

As this court has noted, an official: does not lose qualified immunity merely because a certain right is clearly established in the abstract. … In conducting the second step of the qualified immunity inquiry on summary judgment, we are to determine the issue of clearly established law under the plaintiff’s version of events. See, e.g., Ramirez v.

Adam BAXTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

495 F.2d 437 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jul 9, 1974

The record clearly demonstrates the injurious consequences of the employer’s policies on black employees. … job standards other than the equivocal “best qualified” criterion.

Earles v. State Bd of CPAs

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 10, 1998

executive departments have such immunity). … So long as the Board is acting within its authority and pursuant to a clearly established state policy, there is no need for active supervision of the exercise of properly delegated authority.

Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, III

822 F.3d 212 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 18, 2016

Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705 (1992) (holding Younger abstention clearly erroneous “[a]bsent any pending proceeding in state tribunals”). … Further, whether a defendant’s actions exclusively consist of “making accessible third-party content to Internet users,” the main qualifying language in this injunction, is not always readily determinable even after a complaint

United States v. City of Miami

614 F.2d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 10, 1980

(a) Hiring In order to achieve this long term goal, subject to the availability of qualified applicants, the following recruitment and hiring goals shall be established for blacks, Latins and women (blacks and Latins are … (b) Promotion Subject to the availability of qualified applicants, promotional goals shall be established for minorities, on a department basis, with each department having as its yearly goal, until the long term goal has

Frank F. And Judith J. Foil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

920 F.2d 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 26, 1990

Section 457(b) clearly defines the prerequisites of an eligible plan without in any way excluding funded plans from the application of § 457. … Paragraph (1) is clearly referring to paragraph (1) of § 457(e) which introduces the reader to the treatment of ineligible plans.

Irwin v. Santiago

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 21, 2021

However, the court also held that there was no law clearly establishing that the officers’ conduct was objectively unreasonable, and therefore the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if his conduct did not violate a right that was clearly established at the time. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987).

Lewis v. Inocencio

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 22, 2024

ANALYSIS “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … established at the time of the shooting, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Pendergrass v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission

144 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jun 18, 1998

The two parishes established the GNOEC as their own instrumentality under the authority of the Local Services Law, La. … To that end, the GNOEC has been a success and clearly works for the benefit and welfare of the inhabitants of St.

United States v. Elijah Cosby, A/K/A Tootie Pie

601 F.2d 754 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 27, 1979

Elijah Cosby testified under oath before the grand jury under a grant of immunity in December, 1977. … The record in this case clearly shows that the “grand jury agent” here did not attend the sessions. Clearly he could not and did not. # # * # * * Neither the action of a “grand jury agent” nor the action of the U.S.

Hunt v. Tomplait

301 F. App'x 355 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 8, 2008

No. 08-40491 judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. We affirm the district court’s order holding that Appellants are not entitled to qualified immunity. I. … “First, the district court decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.

Herrera v. Acevedo

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Dec 9, 2022

We have clearly established law on preventing arrest without probable cause and arrest for the purpose of chilling protected speech.” … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Pinckney v. Love, Jr. v. M. W. Sessions, Former Superintendent of the Burke County Board of Education, Etc.

568 F.2d 357 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 21, 1978

official immunity, the school board’s good faith would be a defense to the damages claim; and (iv) the District Court failed to instruct the jury that “proof of the charges founding the nonrenewal would constitute a complete … These instructions do not clearly distinguish between Love’s First Amendment claim and his due process claim.

United States v. Barry Kendall Hogan, and Mark Bradford Hogan

763 F.2d 697 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 29, 1985

The remaining evidence does not so overwhelmingly establish guilt that we could say the error is harmless under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). The convictions of the Hogans must be reversed. … Because Rummel neither signed, read, nor heard the entire document, these notes fail to qualify as a statement under subsection (e)(1).

United States v. Drake Williams

817 F.2d 1136 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 13, 1987

These observations, however, do not avail Sahs, for in this case other portions of the instructions on count one effectively insure that the conviction was based on findings that inherently establish the requisites of a RICO … The conspiracy instruction clearly indicates that each individual defendant must have wilfully joined with the group (as a group).

United Sand and Gravel Contractors, Inc. v. United States

624 F.2d 733 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 8, 1980

Clearly nothing in that language precludes the application of a different and shorter period of limitation to an individual class of actions even though they are brought under § 24(20). … Since the United States is immune from suit except where Congress has waived its immunity, see, e. g., United States v.

Esther Panlilio v. Dallas Independent School District

643 F.2d 315 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Apr 22, 1981

To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiff’s rejection.... … Panlilio met the burden of establishing a prima facie case, however, when we then examine the evidence adduced by DISD in order to rebut Ms.